Owen v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Owen v. State

149 S.E.2d 600, 248 S.C. 233, 1966 S.C. LEXIS 178

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJuly 28, 1966

Docket18543

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 149 S.E.2d 600 (Owen v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Owen v. State, 149 S.E.2d 600, 248 S.C. 233, 1966 S.C. LEXIS 178 (S.C. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This case is controlled by our decision in Dukes v. State, S. C., 149 S. E. (2d) 598 filed contemporaneously herewith. The two cases are concerned with the same indictment and raise the same single issue; they differ only in that they have arrived here via different routes. In the Dukes case, appeal was from a resentence; in this, appeal is by the State from an order of the Honorable John Grimball, Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, in habeas corpus, construing the indictment as having charged highway robbery, not armed robbery, holding that the petitioner, Owen, had served the [235]*235maximum period of confinement provided by law, and ordering him discharged from custody under sentence for that charge.

For the reasons stated in Duke v. State, supra, the judgment is reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This case is controlled by our decision in Dukes v. State, S. C., 149 S. E. (2d) 598 filed contemporaneously herewith. The two cases are concerned with the same indictment and raise the same single issue; they differ only in that they have arrived here via different routes. In the Dukes case, appeal was from a resentence; in this, appeal is by the State from an order of the Honorable John Grimball, Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, in habeas corpus, construing the indictment as having charged highway robbery, not armed robbery, holding that the petitioner, Owen, had served the [235]*235maximum period of confinement provided by law, and ordering him discharged from custody under sentence for that charge.

For the reasons stated in Duke v. State, supra, the judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 S.E.2d 600, 248 S.C. 233, 1966 S.C. LEXIS 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owen-v-state-sc-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack